Before this devolves into the usual, must return, for just a moment, to the intent of the OP. Jonathan and Ramon have both commented on the apparent lack of AT for Chinese units. While I do agree Chinese units are quite thin in this respect, I must suggest ya'll take a look at Treespider v witpqs's AAR at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2754161, where a bunch of Chinese units (ordinary Corps stuff) attack a Japanese stack with a bunch of Infantry and a pantload of Tank Regiments, and absolutely smoke them; 72% casualties (killed or disrupted, mostly killed) to vehicle units. Several other Combat Reports, at other places, show Tank/Vehicle devices incurring reasonable casualties.

Spidey and witpqs are playing Spidey's mod which is based on Babes. Really think that Babes data tweaks (in this area) represent a noticeable improvement in combat outcomes.

Ramon, Jonathan, take a vacation in the Balearics (and invite me along). When you come back, try out a Babes scenario. Ciao. J

Thanks for the referral!

You all know about Babes. What Treespider did in addition was (in no particular order):

Make a bunch of industry centers in North America that must be repaired, so supply available from North America starts out low and ramps up over time.

Changed certain production parameters so places like Palembang (and maybe all refineries?) produce squat for supply.

Reduced the size of various airfields with an eye toward slowing things down.

Made big changes to the Japanese economy with the aim of putting more historical stress on the Japanese merchant fleet. The idea being that those ships would be required to carry back to Japan much more stuff than has been seen in AARs so far.

Added many bases and tiny "political" units in China to simply act as molasses to slow down advances.

Increased garrison requirements in China for both sides.

Added oil and resources at the Panama Canal which can be shipped to Australia to keep the civilian economy going.

Along with a change in at least one of the Babes scenarios, various ships' cargo capacities are reduced so as to require more trips (or ships) to move the same amount of supply.

Some house rules are required to keep it real, such as the Allied player can not turn off industry or repairs to industry except in China. So, you've got to bring that fuel into Australia to keep industry going (and resources too).

I'm certain I omitted 27 things Treespider did, so maybe he'll chime in with anything critical I missed or more detail.

As the thread is about China: So far, China is working out quite well. The point was to make China much more of the stalemate that it was in real life and the changes are doing that. The availability of Japanese offensive power is reduced. Chinese offensive power is a bit less than it was (owing to higher garrison requirements), and the Chinese have a greater ability to harass the Imperial supply lines. We have not yet gotten to the point where the Chinese are supply-starved, as the Burma road only recently closed.

The Chinese still, however, lack much real offensive punch. The attack in question was a two-stage affair. First, the Imperial troops attacked what they probably thought was a smaller force than it actually was. It was in reality more than twice their size (and AV) and somewhat dug in. The attack went badly, blunting the IJA units and certainly burdening them with disruption. The second stage was that the Chinese shock attacked, purely opportunistically. The attack went well, definitely aided by the failed IJA attack the day before.

In China, use good defensive terrain. Concentrate enough troops. Don't get cut off. Use interior lines to redeploy as needed. Threaten and cut off the IJA's supply lines. Build forts. Counter enemy offensives with offensives in other areas that the IJA is compelled to address. Give your troops time for the at-start disabled squads to repair. Pay attention to your units' experience, morale, fatigue, and disruption. Except in really overwhelming numbers, Chinese units will not be good offensive units until their experience is in the mid-50s.

All that would have to be done to prevent this is to not make HQs able to change commands. Pretty simple fix. Hell, that isnt even a code change, thats a database change. I remember everyone saying that changing 2nd air army and releasing almost all the Manchurian air units was "gamey" until Elf said that was the way he designed it. Well, same thing. I cant believe that after what? 4 years now from test to current no one has ever encountered this? You can safely assume it was. And since thats the way it is, then it was probably intended to be that way.

You are taking Ian's comments on this matter out of context. Ian stated it's working as designed but the design intent was not to circumvent the political point system , which you're doing.

Before this devolves into the usual, must return, for just a moment, to the intent of the OP. Jonathan and Ramon have both commented on the apparent lack of AT for Chinese units. While I do agree Chinese units are quite thin in this respect, I must suggest ya'll take a look at Treespider v witpqs's AAR at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2754161, where a bunch of Chinese units (ordinary Corps stuff) attack a Japanese stack with a bunch of Infantry and a pantload of Tank Regiments, and absolutely smoke them; 72% casualties (killed or disrupted, mostly killed) to vehicle units. Several other Combat Reports, at other places, show Tank/Vehicle devices incurring reasonable casualties.

Spidey and witpqs are playing Spidey's mod which is based on Babes. Really think that Babes data tweaks (in this area) represent a noticeable improvement in combat outcomes.

Ramon, Jonathan, take a vacation in the Balearics (and invite me along). When you come back, try out a Babes scenario. Ciao. J

Thanks for the referral!

You all know about Babes. What Treespider did in addition was (in no particular order):

Make a bunch of industry centers in North America that must be repaired, so supply available from North America starts out low and ramps up over time.

Changed certain production parameters so places like Palembang (and maybe all refineries?) produce squat for supply.

Reduced the size of various airfields with an eye toward slowing things down.

Made big changes to the Japanese economy with the aim of putting more historical stress on the Japanese merchant fleet. The idea being that those ships would be required to carry back to Japan much more stuff than has been seen in AARs so far.

Added many bases and tiny "political" units in China to simply act as molasses to slow down advances.

Increased garrison requirements in China for both sides.

Added oil and resources at the Panama Canal which can be shipped to Australia to keep the civilian economy going.

Along with a change in at least one of the Babes scenarios, various ships' cargo capacities are reduced so as to require more trips (or ships) to move the same amount of supply.

Some house rules are required to keep it real, such as the Allied player can not turn off industry or repairs to industry except in China. So, you've got to bring that fuel into Australia to keep industry going (and resources too).

I'm certain I omitted 27 things Treespider did, so maybe he'll chime in with anything critical I missed or more detail.

A large number of the Kwantung Army units are now permanently restricted and thus cannot be bought with PP. This includes much of the artillery, AA, engineer, and armor assets which add little to the Manchukuo garrison Requirement. In regular games most players strip the Kwantung Army of these assets, something which did not happen IRL. When coupled with the HR preventing units from leaving Manchuria/Korea without paying PP it does create even more of the strain felt by the Japanese IRL.

quote:

As the thread is about China: So far, China is working out quite well. The point was to make China much more of the stalemate that it was in real life and the changes are doing that. The availability of Japanese offensive power is reduced. Chinese offensive power is a bit less than it was (owing to higher garrison requirements), and the Chinese have a greater ability to harass the Imperial supply lines. We have not yet gotten to the point where the Chinese are supply-starved, as the Burma road only recently closed.

The Chinese still, however, lack much real offensive punch. The attack in question was a two-stage affair. First, the Imperial troops attacked what they probably thought was a smaller force than it actually was. It was in reality more than twice their size (and AV) and somewhat dug in. The attack went badly, blunting the IJA units and certainly burdening them with disruption. The second stage was that the Chinese shock attacked, purely opportunistically. The attack went well, definitely aided by the failed IJA attack the day before.

I thought if I massed tanks with some quality Inf Div. I would have been able to achieve more. I do believe part of my failure was a lack of PREP. I've found that PREP is more important than it once was. I failed to prep for the dotbase in which George's army was located. In normal AE and other versions the hex in question would not have had a base...in my version most cultivated hexes in China have a dot base.

The extra bases create an opportunity for the Chinese to prep for far more fall back positions than regular AE. In addition the extra bases and Political units help to create a smoke screen that the Chinese can use to hide regular army units that can be used to harass LOCs "behind" my lines.

In China, use good defensive terrain. Concentrate enough troops. Don't get cut off. Use interior lines to redeploy as needed. Threaten and cut off the IJA's supply lines. Build forts. Counter enemy offensives with offensives in other areas that the IJA is compelled to address. Give your troops time for the at-start disabled squads to repair. Pay attention to your units' experience, morale, fatigue, and disruption. Except in really overwhelming numbers, Chinese units will not be good offensive units until their experience is in the mid-50s.

If AE OB is similar to WITP China is vastly too weak. Also, allegedly China is weak in supplies. IRL it was a source of supplies for both sides - the Chinese traded with the enemy! Not entirely for wrong headed reasons. Reality is different in China.

There are almost no AT weapons in China - and little AT expertise. It was IJA that had dedicated AT teams in infantry squads, not China. The Japanese concept was at least backed by some weapons and tactics too. No one was even trying most of that in China. So AT values may be correct.

But the Chinese OB is huge. And Chinese units live off the land - something I was able to simulate in WITP - but probably absent in AE. Chinese units should rebuild slowly if left alone - invisibly as it were.

A problem is that the Chinese spend more time fighting other Chinese than the Japanese. Another problem is that Chinese in huge numbers served Japan - if "Chinese" applies to all the nationalities involved. Many of these units were even worse than ROC units - but they do work as garrison forces. Is this modeled in AE?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

As you are aware Ramon (Fletcher) and I have recently given up our game, played under the last official patch. Several issues have arisen that we feel need addressing or discussed.

1) Chinese OOB, Chinese AT values and relative weakness of Chinese Corps. China seems very, very weak in the field. Several encounters, after having made the best possible leadership changes and ensuring a decent force ratio, resulted in massive losses for China in the region of 80-85% vs 1 or 2% Japanese. If this happened once or twice then fair enough. I happened wih increasing frequency, sometimes even with fully supplied units in good defensive terrain.

Chinese AT values are laughable. One Cavalry Corps in wooded terrain could not dislodge a Japanese armoured regiment. I think I mentioned in my AAR that not even the vaunted early war Panzer Regiments could have done this. I accept that anti-tank gun capacity in Chinese TO&E's has to be low but why are AT values for squads so low? A dedicated aerial campaign in China backed by a few divisions and a lot of armour can blitz its way to Chungking.

This is not sour grapes as if I am out maneouvered in the field then so be it and no moaning but China seems to be the house of cards Hitler though Russia was going to be.

2) Coordination issues on both sides. Ramon explains it very well in his AAR section on the first counter attacks on the USMC toehold on Lunga. I had a very similar problem in my tentative counter in the Arakan. All supporting fields (most level 5 one or two 8+) had at least one RAAF Group HQ on them as well as X2 supplies, as well as a theatre air HQ at Dacca. First attack on Akyab, 150+ fighters (following established forum doctrine for escorts) did not show, neither did the sweeps (weather ok and so on as bombers took off from same bases), cue 40+ bombers shot down. End of bomber support for attack.

3) Dud rate is baffling. One merchant ship got hit by 9 duds in one sole attack, 14 in total in a chain of attacks from Milne Bay to Merauke via PM and HI. I get the hisorical dud question and love its in the game but it seemed in this game that the Dutch, British and S-Boat subs were also having an excessively high dud rate. Especially against military targets, I think 5 of his carriers were hit by duds (only the Kaga had an explosion). This issue also occured in my game vs Local Yokel in WITP vanilla days. We commented that MSW's and PG's were torpedo magnets but all other military targets swallowed dud after dud.

4) The invulnerabiliy of 4e's unescorted during daylight raids also raised some concerns. OK for the AFB (me) but very frustrating for the JFB (him). He'd lose more fighters than I bombers, thats including flak and ops losses. Sometimes 12 bombers vs 50 fighters and still he'd lose maybe two or three planes, the eggs dropped on the target and maybe one op loss on the way back.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads (after FOW, confirmed by me when I run the turn). I would say that after the bombardment I was still at 90-92% fighting strength. This also after raids by KB and a lot of LBA (fort level never went beyond 3 do not know what level Ramon had when I landed). These same Marines then fought back two IJA attacks by three, according to Ramon elite and 100% prepped, divisons. By this point I had 20 supply on Lunga.

We both love the game but felt very strongly about these issues to sop playing. I am already used to playing without carriers so the Battle of the Solomons had no impact on our decision, as a matter of fact the game continued for a few weeks afer he defeat at sea. Ramon has stated that had I pounded Rangoon from Northern Oz, due to the ease the 4e's have in getting to the target, I would have cut off all supply to the Solomons.

Anyhow thanks for the time in reading this and do not take it as a 'I hate this game and I am leaving rant', rather as an 'we both love the game and want as much as possible to see it improved' post.

I gather from Mifune that aircraft performance suffers from failure to get into the nitty gritty of what the data means? He use RHS values (modified for AE scale) and found far better effects. It took YEARS to figure out how the fields work - and just plugging in numbers without regard to code isn't going to produce realistic effects. I am going to experiment with this - and if it can be addressed - or if Mifune's values already have done that comprehensively - we may issue scenarios simply incorporating those values in otherwise unchanged scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

As you are aware Ramon (Fletcher) and I have recently given up our game, played under the last official patch. Several issues have arisen that we feel need addressing or discussed.

1) Chinese OOB, Chinese AT values and relative weakness of Chinese Corps. China seems very, very weak in the field. Several encounters, after having made the best possible leadership changes and ensuring a decent force ratio, resulted in massive losses for China in the region of 80-85% vs 1 or 2% Japanese. If this happened once or twice then fair enough. I happened wih increasing frequency, sometimes even with fully supplied units in good defensive terrain.

Chinese AT values are laughable. One Cavalry Corps in wooded terrain could not dislodge a Japanese armoured regiment. I think I mentioned in my AAR that not even the vaunted early war Panzer Regiments could have done this. I accept that anti-tank gun capacity in Chinese TO&E's has to be low but why are AT values for squads so low? A dedicated aerial campaign in China backed by a few divisions and a lot of armour can blitz its way to Chungking.

This is not sour grapes as if I am out maneouvered in the field then so be it and no moaning but China seems to be the house of cards Hitler though Russia was going to be.

2) Coordination issues on both sides. Ramon explains it very well in his AAR section on the first counter attacks on the USMC toehold on Lunga. I had a very similar problem in my tentative counter in the Arakan. All supporting fields (most level 5 one or two 8+) had at least one RAAF Group HQ on them as well as X2 supplies, as well as a theatre air HQ at Dacca. First attack on Akyab, 150+ fighters (following established forum doctrine for escorts) did not show, neither did the sweeps (weather ok and so on as bombers took off from same bases), cue 40+ bombers shot down. End of bomber support for attack.

3) Dud rate is baffling. One merchant ship got hit by 9 duds in one sole attack, 14 in total in a chain of attacks from Milne Bay to Merauke via PM and HI. I get the hisorical dud question and love its in the game but it seemed in this game that the Dutch, British and S-Boat subs were also having an excessively high dud rate. Especially against military targets, I think 5 of his carriers were hit by duds (only the Kaga had an explosion). This issue also occured in my game vs Local Yokel in WITP vanilla days. We commented that MSW's and PG's were torpedo magnets but all other military targets swallowed dud after dud.

4) The invulnerabiliy of 4e's unescorted during daylight raids also raised some concerns. OK for the AFB (me) but very frustrating for the JFB (him). He'd lose more fighters than I bombers, thats including flak and ops losses. Sometimes 12 bombers vs 50 fighters and still he'd lose maybe two or three planes, the eggs dropped on the target and maybe one op loss on the way back.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads (after FOW, confirmed by me when I run the turn). I would say that after the bombardment I was still at 90-92% fighting strength. This also after raids by KB and a lot of LBA (fort level never went beyond 3 do not know what level Ramon had when I landed). These same Marines then fought back two IJA attacks by three, according to Ramon elite and 100% prepped, divisons. By this point I had 20 supply on Lunga.

We both love the game but felt very strongly about these issues to sop playing. I am already used to playing without carriers so the Battle of the Solomons had no impact on our decision, as a matter of fact the game continued for a few weeks afer he defeat at sea. Ramon has stated that had I pounded Rangoon from Northern Oz, due to the ease the 4e's have in getting to the target, I would have cut off all supply to the Solomons.

Anyhow thanks for the time in reading this and do not take it as a 'I hate this game and I am leaving rant', rather as an 'we both love the game and want as much as possible to see it improved' post.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

el cid again come back ! Nice !!.... One clarification about IJN bombardment mission over Lunga in my game vs Cantona2: I bombed 4 consecutive times with 5 BBs in the same month with same outcome! ... If one were with 2 USMC squad disabled, I´ll be agree, but 4 times is strange, ..very strange..!

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

In another PBEM I've got going, I've got Japanese forces ashore engaging Allied defenders at Luganville. In two separate bombardment attacks by BB's and CA's only my Japanese troops were hit. I lost just under 1000 casualties and massive disruption while my opponent suffered absolutely no losses. This should be an exception and not the rule. It seems for every one good bombardment result there are anywhere from 3-5 subpar ones. I've also encountered bombardments from Allied CL's and DD's that inflict more damage under similar circumstances than a force of Japanese BB's and CA's. I understand random results will occur, but bombardment seems off to me.

I made a quick research around Chinese AT values: Device 371 Chinese Squad have AT 5, same as non-western countries, and same as Japan Device 1311 75mm Gun, have actually similar AT, as other 75mm guns, and 90 penetration, which is better than all Japanese 75mm guns, except Type 90 Device 1308 37mm AT Gun, is actually better even from 47mm AT Japanese Gun (53 vs 52 AT, and 70 vs 65 penetration)

So all this is only because Chinese have so few guns in their units. The only possible modification would be difference between 75mm Bofors Gun, which should be main Gun of China in 1941, and 75mm Pack Howitzer, which will be delivered, after war starts. Stock does not work this way, but my calculations, dependable of muzzle velocity, set AT strength at 32. Not really much more. Anyway, clearly, if China is weak in AT power, Japan is even weaker. And they will face even more powerful tanks in future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

el cid again

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

In another PBEM I've got going, I've got Japanese forces ashore engaging Allied defenders at Luganville. In two separate bombardment attacks by BB's and CA's only my Japanese troops were hit. I lost just under 1000 casualties and massive disruption while my opponent suffered absolutely no losses. This should be an exception and not the rule. It seems for every one good bombardment result there are anywhere from 3-5 subpar ones. I've also encountered bombardments from Allied CL's and DD's that inflict more damage under similar circumstances than a force of Japanese BB's and CA's. I understand random results will occur, but bombardment seems off to me.

It was simple trick in WITP. When you used DDs in your bombardment force, you would get FAR better results. I almost always get quite acceptable results of bombardments, but I usually bombard at point-blank, and include DDs in most cases.

Anyway, it will be easy to check, what was difference in these TFs, as you can check, and compare configuration of ships, and their guns statistics.

In my own experience with BB Yamato, and another 4 BBs with CAs and DDs bombarding at short (2.000 yards) against LCUs at Lunga, I got 2 disabled USMC squads... this was the last of my bombardment mission over enemy ... frustrated after another 4 similar missions, I thought that was better be docked at Truk.

It was simple trick in WITP. When you used DDs in your bombardment force, you would get FAR better results. I almost always get quite acceptable results of bombardments, but I usually bombard at point-blank, and include DDs in most cases.

Anyway, it will be easy to check, what was difference in these TFs, as you can check, and compare configuration of ships, and their guns statistics.

Hi inqistor,

I should have pointed out that these bombardment groups all had 6 or more DD's included in the TF with escorts set to bombard. My point being that when you still consider there are 8" and 14" shells being lobbed at the enemy by the BB's and CA's on top of what the DD's are adding the results are quite poor more often than not.

Well truth be told, I think the "best" house rule (from my personal viewpoint, I dont expect everyone to agree) is to allow the 5 Chinese divisions to enter Burma, require Japan to maintain a minimum garrison (like Manchuria) and leave it. Neither side does anything (except HK of course). In my opinion, the game engine doesnt handle this theater very well.

But like I said, just my opinion.

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

In my own experience with BB Yamato, and another 4 BBs with CAs and DDs bombarding at short (2.000 yards) against LCUs at Lunga, I got 2 disabled USMC squads... this was the last of my bombardment mission over enemy ... frustrated after another 4 similar missions, I thought that was better be docked at Truk.

Well, if those ships had full ammo, I would say, that should not happen. Even without recon, simple luck should produce good result in at least one case.

The only explanation, although not very possible, would be, that you guys patched the game mid-way, and it somehow influenced results. But it should worked for boyh sides, not only one.

As I said, I do not closely look at LCUs ground bombard results, but I surely can easily destroy dozens of planes in bombarded base.

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

I think TS mod does a good job of what you would look for in China. It gives the walking in mud feeling for the Japanese, and you find yourself thinking more about shifting garrisons around than about tank dashes into the hinterlands. The extra politico units really do crank up the FOW effect as well. I am not saying it is fun, but it does give a good feel for the type of warfare that went on there. I think the way he used broken down units to limit them in time is brilliant. But yes, you still need some houserules, and if you don't use them, I suppose a Japanese player can do some odd things there.

China is as it is, both players can make some hay there, or lose. Hate the playa' not the game!!

I have no problem standing as the chinese in scen 1 or 2 as long as the HR about no buy outs on the cheap is enforced - just make sure you defend in decent terrain and keep the small guerilla corps active on the Jap supply lines

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

Well thats exacly my point. Look at the - was it called "I Go"? Operation in 1944. When B-29s started to base in southern China, the Jap army swept through the entire area in a few months. Now anyone going to say that the Japs couldnt have done this in 1941 if they had wanted to? Of course they could have. They didnt because they didnt need it and the area wasnt under Changs control, so why bother? And therein lies the problem with the game. And it isnt a problem that can be corrected easily. The Japs didnt do a lot of things in China that they certainly could have (and history is proof of it) had they wanted to. And the exact reason I have said from the beginning of the testing period way back when that China and Manchuria should be removed from the game outright.

The game just isnt designed to handle the political issues going on. The mess in China is a prime example. You have the Red Chinese, the Nationalists, and a few dozen warlords all with their own agendas and goals. The in-fighting within India is another case in point. The game is designed to be the "allies" vs the Japanese. But the real war wasnt that cut and died.

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

Well thats exacly my point. Look at the - was it called "I Go"? Operation in 1944. When B-29s started to base in southern China, the Jap army swept through the entire area in a few months. Now anyone going to say that the Japs couldnt have done this in 1941 if they had wanted to? Of course they could have. They didnt because they didnt need it and the area wasnt under Changs control, so why bother?

Actually the Kwantung Army was unwilling to let go of the forces necessary for conducting the operation...my mod addresses that aspect.

quote:

And therein lies the problem with the game. And it isnt a problem that can be corrected easily. The Japs didnt do a lot of things in China that they certainly could have (and history is proof of it) had they wanted to. And the exact reason I have said from the beginning of the testing period way back when that China and Manchuria should be removed from the game outright.

The game just isnt designed to handle the political issues going on. The mess in China is a prime example. You have the Red Chinese, the Nationalists, and a few dozen warlords all with their own agendas and goals. The in-fighting within India is another case in point. The game is designed to be the "allies" vs the Japanese. But the real war wasnt that cut and died.

And my mod also address that aspect as well necessitating Chiang and his Chinese warlords to maintain sizable garrisons over and above the stock requirements in places that do not necessarily affect the war against the Japanese.

Unwilling perhaps, but they released what? 17 divisions for I-Go wasnt it? Does you mod account for the Japanese player committing virtually all the IJA airforce in China as well? That more than anything is what screws the Chinese.

Ed Actually if memory serves they used 17 divisions total in the operation, about half were from Manchuria iirc. I could be off on that, it was quite a while ago since I looked at that. You would know those numbers better than I would.

The Elf said in post #87 hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey 2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system 3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

quote:

The Elf said in Post #93

I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.

The Elf said in post #87 hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey 2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system 3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

quote:

The Elf said in Post #93

I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.

Keep searching. witpqs has already said he saw his post also. And question, why are YOU bringing it up? Also note, I am NOT talking about attaching ground units to an air HQ. Im talking about attaching a ground HQ to a ground HQ and transferring ground units to that ground HQ, which has NOTHING to do with Elf. What Elf had said originally was that releasing most of the Manchurian air units (the ones attached to 2nd air div) for the cost of changing the HQ was working as designed. But again, I am NOT talking aboutn transferring ground units to an air HQ, so again, outside Elfs area. I personally do feel that attaching ground units to an air HQ shouldnt be allowed (except perhaps base units).

Also note, not 1 dev has said it isnt working as designed (referring to changing a HQs command). I for 1 have been doing it since the beginning. And if Im not terribly mistaken I pointed it out in some pre-launch AARS that Tree and I did, way back when. So to come along and claim its "gamey" at this stage of the game is frankly laughable.

I also pointed out that you could disband the west coast HQ and release all the west coast units. This was changed shortly after to NOT allow that to happen. But the ability to change an unrestricted HQ to a restricted HQ and release units at 1/4 cost has always been there.

Ed. You can also change a bases HQ and move "restricted units" to these bases. For example, changing Australian bases to ABDA and basing restricted Dutch air units there. Im sure some would call that gamey also, but then, the PP cost of some of these base changes is pretty steep, so I personally dont see anything wrong with that either. One particular game I was in the Jap player circled Australia 3 times with the KB, so while he amused himself of what I considered a gamey move, I evacuated most of the Phil army to Australia by changing 2 bases command to FFE and flying them out by PBYs. Do I consider that gamey? Yes I do. But was in response to something the other guy was doing that I felt was.